Editing Intelligent design (section)

===Kitzmiller trial===
{{Main|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District}}
''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' was the first direct challenge brought in the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|United States federal courts]] against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.<ref name="NCSE 2008-17-10">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover |title=Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover National Center for Science Education |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=October 17, 2008 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2014-02-28}}
* [[#Matzke 2006a|Matzke 2006a]]</ref>

Eleven parents of students in [[Dover, Pennsylvania]], sued the [[Dover Area School District]] over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU), [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] (AU) and [[Pepper Hamilton|Pepper Hamilton LLP]]. The National Center for Science Education acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the [[Thomas More Law Center]].<ref>
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
|court=United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
|url=http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/pamd/files/opinions/04v2688a.pdf
}} Memorandum and Order, July 27, 2005.</ref> The suit was tried in a [[bench trial]] from September 26 to November 4, 2005, before Judge [[John E. Jones III]]. [[Kenneth R. Miller]], Kevin Padian, [[Brian Alters]], [[Robert T. Pennock]], Barbara Forrest and [[John F. Haught]] served as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs. Michael Behe, [[Steve Fuller (sociologist)|Steve Fuller]] and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense.

On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his 139-page [[Question of fact|findings of fact]] and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. On November 8, 2005, there had been an election in which the eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.<ref>{{cite news |last=Powell |first=Michael |date=December 21, 2005 |title=Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design' |url=http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5945 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055938/http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5945 |archive-date=September 28, 2007 |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref>

In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the "Teach the Controversy" strategy:

{{Blockquote|Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the ''controversy'', but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a [[Wikt:canard#Noun|canard]]. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.<ref>{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 89</ref>}}